Re: [PATCH 0/6] Address issues with SPDX requirements and PEP-263

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:17:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Markus Heiser wrote:
> > > Am 07.09.19 um 20:04 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> > > > No idea. I would actually prefer to just remove the restriction, and let
> > > > the SPDX header to be anywhere inside the first comment block inside a
> > > > file [2].
> > > > [2] I *suspect* that the restriction was added in order to make
> > > >      ./scripts/spdxcheck.py to run faster and to avoid false positives.
> > > >      Right now, if the maximum limit is removed (or set to a very high
> > > >      value), there will be one false positive:
> > 
> > Nope. The intention was to have a well define place and format instead of
> > everyone and his dog deciding to put it somewhere. SPDX is not intended to
> > replace the existing licensing mess with some other randomly placed and
> > formatted licensing mess.
> 
> I find the current style quite unaesthetic:
> 
> // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> /*
>  *  linux/mm/memory.c
>  *
>  *  Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994  Linus Torvalds
>  */
> 
> I'd much rather see
> 
> /*
>  * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>  * Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994  Linus Torvalds
>  */
> 
> but I appreciate the desire to force it to be on the first line if at all
> possible.

That style is inflicted upon you by Penguin Emperor Decree. :)